Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice to Melanie Carr of Democratic Services (see contact details at bottom of page) by midday on Friday 27 May 2022, three working days before the day of the meeting. Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item. Members of the public, who have given notice, will be invited to speak:
· At this point in the meeting if their questions/statements relate to matters which are not otherwise on the Agenda (subject to an overall time limit of 30 minutes);
· When the relevant Agenda item is being considered if they wish to speak on a matter which is on the Agenda for this meeting;
· If you are exercising your right to speak at this meeting, but do not wish to be recorded, please inform the Chairman who will ask anyone who may be taking a recording to cease while you speak.
Minutes:
Mr Brian Forbes attended the meeting to present his question to the Forum, as follows:
“North Yorkshire Council have a mechanism for prioritising public rights of way maintenance which is heavily biased towards urban areas to the detriment of rural areas.
Last year a collapsing bridleway bridge in the village where I live resulted in the closure of the bridleway to the public. The bridleway is part of a popular circular route south of the village which can no longer be used. The prows in and around the village are rated very low using the rating equation used by NYC and recently the closure of the bridleway has been extended again, a further six months to October.
The collapse of the bridge gives rise to a high level of risk to public safety and such issues are supposed to be given overriding priority. I was informed originally that “when the new budget is set” in April 2022 I would be informed of the status of the bridge replacement, however upon pursuing this in May I was informed that the bridge would be considered “as part of a package” and that it would be given consideration along with a number of other outstanding issues which involved public safety.
This gives rise to a number of questions, primarily
1. How do NYC reconcile budgeted finance for prows with their outstanding list of priorities left over from previous year/s.
2. Is the bridge in question currently seen as a safety priority when the bridleway is continually closed to the public. In which case is it no longer a safety issue and destined to languish at the bottom of the pile.
3. Is length of time out of use part of the equation which establishes priority.
I could pursue this on a monthly basis with NYC and have yet to decide in my own mind whether the officer I am communicating with actually does know where the bridge in question fits into the plan and doesn’t want to say “it’s not going to happen”, is being ambiguous because he genuinely doesn’t know or is making it up as he goes along? The view of the access forum to my questions would be appreciated”.
Ian Kelly - Countryside Access Manager apologised that the closure of public bridleway no. 10.155/12/1 at Thornton le Moor was causing Mr Forbes an inconvenience.
He confirmed North Yorkshire County Council had the largest network of public rights of way (PROW) in the country with over 6100km of footpaths, bridleways, restricted byways and byways open to all traffic, and also confirmed that the Countryside Access Services (CAS), which managed the PROW network, received approximately 1930 reports of issues on the network per year.
Consequently, as in the case with the vast majority of Local Authorities, the County Council had prioritised its workload and targeted its limited resources to resolving issues that pose the most significant risk and impact on network users. He referenced the prioritisation framework, which the County council had adopted in 2017 following extensive consultation with the public, Parish Councils, PROW user groups and stakeholders, Local Access Forum, Council Scrutiny and Area Committees.
He went on to confirm that issues were scored based on a combination of route category, the effect on the user and the risk, and were categorised as High (25 and above); Medium (15 – 24) and Low (14 and below) Priority. This drove work programming and as a key principle, the Service looked to address higher scoring issues before lower scoring issues. He agreed that following the meeting, he would provide Mr Forbes with an excerpt from a 2017 BES Executive report, which included details of route categorisation and the issue prioritisation model, together with practical examples of issue prioritisation scoring for information.
In regard to the unsafe bridge in question, Ian Kelly confirmed that as a result of an overall Issue Priority score of 27, the bridge was a high priority issue. Public safety was paramount and for that reason, a formal temporary closure of the right of way at the bridge had been implemented when an inspection raised concerns about its condition in October 2021.
He noted that while superficially the damage to the 4 metre span bridge may appear minor and easy to rectify, the inspection had revealed that both the main beams and abutments were defective and consequently the bridge required complete replacement and had therefore been added to a bridge replacement programme.
Ian Kelly confirmed that approximately 40% of CAS’s maintenance budget a year was spent on bridge repairs and replacements. In general terms, installation of short span and simple (pedestrian) bridges was managed by officers in CAS and larger, more complex structures (as in the bridge in question) were managed by Highways Bridge Engineers working closely with CAS officers.
He confirmed officers have explored options to divert the right of way to negate the need for a replacement, however, negotiations with the landowner had not been successful. Therefore, replacement of the bridge was scheduled for the current financial year but this was subject to the engineers having capacity to do the work and being able to secure the necessary consents. Nevertheless, the Council would do whatever it could to ensure the bridge was replaced and the bridleway re-opened as soon as possible.
In respect to the three questions raised by Mr Forbes, Ian Kelly confirmed:
1. The bridge replacement list remained the same and CAS’ revenue budget for maintenance (which in addition to bridges also included seasonal vegetation; surfacing; signpost; and gates & stile programmes) was allocated out of the respective financial year’s budget.
2. The Issue Priority score was high and would remain as such until resolved. Consequently, in the interest of public safety, the closure would remain in place until the bridge was replaced.
3. In the context of the bridge replacement programme, where issues had the same priority score, the age of the issue was taken into consideration when determining which bridge would be replaced first.
Finally, Ian Kelly confirmed Mr Forbes would be advised in due course when the works were scheduled to be completed.
Paul Sherwood thanked Mr Forbes for his contribution to the meeting.